The Laws of Large Numbers Compared
Tom Verhoeff
July 1993

1 Introduction
Probability Theory includes various theorems known as Laws of Large Numbers;
for instance, see [Fel68, Hea71, Ros89]. Usually two major categories are distinguished: Weak Laws versus Strong Laws. Within these categories there are numerous subtle variants of differing generality. Also the Central Limit Theorems areoften brought up in this context.
Many introductory probability texts treat this topic superficially, and more thanonce their vague formulations are misleading or plainly wrong. In this note, weconsider a special case to clarify the relationship between the Weak and StrongLaws. The reason for doing so is that I have not been able to find a concise formal
exposition all in one place. The material presented here is certainly not new and
was gleaned from many sources.
In the following sections, X 1 , X 2 , . . . is a sequence of independent and identically distributed random variables with finite expectation µ. We define the associated sequence X̄ i of partial sample means by1X
Xi .
n i=1nX̄ n =The Laws of Large Numbers make statements about the convergence of X̄ n to µ.
Both laws relate bounds on sample size, accuracy of approximation, and degree ofconfidence. The Weak Laws deal with limits of probabilities involving X̄ n . The
Strong Laws deal with probabilities involving limits of X̄ n . Especially the mathematical underpinning of the Strong Laws requires a careful approach ([Hea71,Ch. 5] is an accessible presentation).

2 The Weak Law of Large Numbers
Let’s not beat about the bush. Here is what the Weak Law says about convergenceof X̄ n to µ.
2.1 Theorem (Weak Law of Large Numbers)∀ε>0 lim Pr | X̄ n − µ| ≤ ε = 1 .
n→∞

1We have(1)This is often abbreviated toP

X̄ n → µ

as n → ∞or in words: X̄ n converges in probability to µ as n → ∞.
On account of the definition of limit and the fact that probabilities are at most 1,Equation (1) can be rewritten as∀ε>0 ∀δ>0 ∃ N>0 ∀n≥N Pr | X̄ n − µ| ≤ ε ≥ 1 − δ .
(2)
The proof of the Weak Law is easy when the X i ’s have a finite variance. It is
most often based on Chebyshev’s Inequality.
2.2 Theorem (Chebyshev’s Inequality) Let X be a random variable with finite
mean µ and finite variance σ 2 . Then we have
Pr (|X − µ| ≥ a) ≤σ2a2

for all a > 0.
A slightly different way of putting it is this: For all a > 0, we have
Pr (|X − µ| ≥ aσ ) ≤1.
a2Thus, the probability that X deviates from its expected value by at least k standard
deviations is at most 1/k 2 . Chebyshev’s Inequality is sharp when no further assumptions are made about X ’s distribution, but for practical applications it is often
too sloppy. For example, the probability that X remains within 3σ of µ is at least 89 ,no matter what distribution X has. However, when X is known to have a normal
distribution, this probability in fact exceeds 0.9986.
We now prove the Weak Law when the variance is finite. Let σ 2 be the varianceof each X i . In that case, we have E X̄ n = µ and Var X̄ n = σ 2 /n. Let ε > 0.
√Substituting X, µ, σ, a := X̄ n , µ, σ/ n, ε in Chebyshev’s Inequality then yields
Pr | X̄ n − µ| ≥ ε≤σ2.
nε 2(3)Hence, for δ > 0 and for all n ≥ max{1, σ 2 /δε 2 } we havePr | X̄ n − µ| < ε > 1 − δwhich completes the proof.

2

The Central Limit Theorem
Note that σ = 0 is uninteresting because in that case we have Pr (X n = µ) = 1(on account of Chebyshev’s Inequality and continuity of probability for monotonic
sequences of events).
In the case of finite non-zero variance, the Central Limit Theorem provides amuch stronger result.
2.3 Theorem (Central Limit Theorem) If the X i ’s have finite non-zero variance σ 2 ,then for all a ≤ b,X̄ n − µlim Pr a ≤√ ≤b= 8 (b) − 8 (a)
(4)
n→∞
σ/ n
where 8 is the standard normal distribution defined byZ z
11 2e− 2 x dx .
8 (z) = √2π −∞Convergence in (4) is uniform in a and b.
The Central Limit Theorem can be interpreted as stating that for large n, the random variable X̄ n approximately has a normal distribution with mean µ and stan√dard deviation σ/ n.
We now prove that the Central Limit Theorem implies the Weak Law of Large
Numbers when 0 < σ < ∞. First observe that substituting a, b := −c/σ, c/σ inthe Central Limit Theorem yields

c
 c
clim Pr | X̄ n − µ| ≤ √= 8−8 −.
(5)n→∞
σσn
Let ε > 0 and δ > 0. Take c > 0 such that 8 (−c/σ√) ≤ δ/3 (this is possible since
8 (z) → 0 as z → −∞) and take N such that c/ N ≤ ε and the limit in (5) isapproached closer than δ/3 for all n ≥ N. We derive for n ≥ N (with hints placedbetween braces):Pr | X̄ n − µ| ≤ ε√√≥{ monotonicity of Pr, using c/ n ≤ c/ N ≤ ε, on account of definition of N }√ Pr | X̄ n − µ| ≤ c/ n≥

{ definition of N }8 (c/σ ) − 8 (−c/σ ) − δ/3={ 8(z) + 8(−z) = 1 }1 − 28 (−c/σ ) − δ/3≥{ definition of c }1−δ3This concludes the proof.
If convergence to the standard normal distribution is assumed to be ‘good’(much better than δ), then we can take bound N such thatε√ δ8N≥ 1− .
(6)σ2Compare this to the bound N ≥ σ 2 /δε 2 on account of Chebyshev’s Inequality.
As an example, consider the case where we want to be 95% certain that the sample mean falls within 14 σ of µ; that is, δ = 0.05 and ε = σ/4. Chebyshev’sInequality√ yields N ≥ 16/0.05 = 320 and the standard normal approximation
yields N /4 ≥ 1.96 or N ≥ 61.47. Thus, if the standard normal approximation is‘good’ then our need is already fulfilled by the mean of 62 samples, instead of the320 required by Chebyshev’s Inequality.
I would like to emphasize the following points concerning the Central Limit Theorem.
• There exist estimates of how closely the standard normal distribution approximates the distribution of the sample mean. Consult [Fel71, Hea71] for
the Berry–Esséen bound.
• If the X i ’s themselves have a normal distribution, then so does the sample
mean and the ‘approximation’ in the Central Limit Theorem is in fact exact.
• The more general versions of the Weak Law are not derivable from (moregeneral versions of) the Central Limit Theorem.

3 The Strong Law of Large Numbers
Let’s start again with the theorem.
3.1 Theorem (Strong Law of Large Numbers)Pr lim X̄ n = µ = 1 .

We haven→∞(7)

This is often abbreviated toa.s.

X̄ n → µ

as n → ∞or in words: X̄ n converges almost surely to µ as n → ∞.
One of the problems with such a law is the assignment of probabilities to statements involving infinitely many random variables. For that purpose, one needs acareful introduction of notions like sample space, probability measure, and randomvariable. See for instance [Tuc67, Hea71, Chu74a, LR79].
Using some Probability Theory, the Strong Law can be rewritten into a form
with probabilities involving finitely many random variables only. We rewrite Equation (7) in a chain of equivalences:4
Pr lim X̄ n = µ = 1n→∞⇔{ definition of limit }Pr ∀ε>0 ∃ N>0 ∀n≥N | X̄ n − µ| ≤ ε = 1⇔(8){ Note 1 below }∀ε>0 Pr ∃ N>0 ∀n≥N | X̄ n − µ| ≤ ε = 1⇔(9){ Note 2 below }∀ε>0 ∀δ>0 ∃ N>0 Pr ∀n≥N | X̄ n − µ| ≤ ε ≥ 1 − δ⇔(10){ Note 3 below }∀ε>0 ∀δ>0 ∃ N>0 ∀r≥0 Pr ∀ N≤n≤N+r | X̄ n − µ| ≤ ε ≥ 1 − δ(11)Comparing Equations (2) and (10) we immediately infer the Weak Law from theStrong Law, which explains their names.
In order to supply the notes to above derivation, let (, F , P) be an appropriate
probability space for the random variables X i , and define events Aε , B N , and Cr
for ε > 0, N > 0, and r ≥ 0 by
Aε = {ω ∈  | ∃ N>0 ∀n≥N | X̄ n (ω) − µ| ≤ ε}
BN= {ω ∈  | ∀n≥N | X̄ n (ω) − µ| ≤ ε}

Cr= {ω ∈  | ∀ N≤n≤N+r | X̄ n (ω) − µ| ≤ ε} .

These events satisfy the following monotonicity properties:
Aε ⊇Aε 0BN⊆ B N+1Cr⊇ Cr+1 .

for ε ≥ ε 0Therefore, on account of the continuity of probability measure P for monotonic
chains of events, we haveTP( ∞lim P(A1/m )(12)m=1 A1/m ) = m→∞
S∞(13)
P( N=1 B N ) = lim P(B N )N→∞
T∞(14)
P( r=0 Cr ) = lim P(Cr ) .
r→∞Note 1. We derivePr ∀ε>0 ∃ N>0 ∀n≥N | X̄ n − µ| ≤ ε = 1⇔{ definitions of Pr and Aε }TP( ε>0 Aε ) = 1⇔{ monotonicity of Aε , using 1/m → 0 as m → ∞ }T∞P( m=1 A1/m ) = 1⇔{ (12) }5

lim P(A1/m ) = 1m→∞⇔{ property of limits, using that P(A1/m ) is descending and at most 1 }∀m>0 P(A1/m ) = 1⇔{ see first two steps, also using monotonicity of P }∀ε>0 Pr ∃ N>0 ∀n≥N | X̄ n − µ| ≤ ε = 1Note 2. We derive for ε > 0Pr ∃ N>0 ∀n≥N | X̄ n − µ| ≤ ε = 1⇔{ definitions of Pr and B N , and set theory }S∞
P( N=1 B N ) = 1⇔{ (13) }lim P(B N ) = 1N→∞⇔{ definition of limit, using P(Bk ) ≤ 1 }∀δ>0 ∃ N>0 ∀k≥N P(Bk ) ≥ 1 − δ⇔{ monotonicity of P, using Bk ⊇ B N for k ≥ N }∀δ>0 ∃ N>0 P(B N ) ≥ 1 − δ⇔{ definitions of Pr and B N }∀δ>0 ∃ N>0 Pr ∀n≥N | X̄ n − µ| ≤ ε ≥ 1 − δNote 3. We derive for ε > 0, δ > 0, and N > 0Pr ∀n≥N | X̄ n − µ| ≤ ε ≥ 1 − δ⇔{ definitions of Pr and Cr , and set theory }TP( r≥0 Cr ) ≥ 1 − δ⇔{ (14) }lim P(Cr ) ≥ 1 − δr→∞⇔
{ property of limits, using that P(Cr ) is descending }∀r≥0 P(Cr ) ≥ 1 − δ⇔{ definitions of Pr and Cr }∀r≥0 Pr ∀ N≤n≤N+r | X̄ n − µ| ≤ ε ≥ 1 − δQuotes from the literature
I have not been able to find a reference that explicitly presents the preceding chainof equivalent expressions for the Strong Law ([Chu74a, Ch. 4] comes close). Many
authors take one of these expression as definition. Below are some typical quotes
to illustrate the state of affairs. Note that each of these quotes contains a partly
verbal expression, which in some cases is even ambiguous as to the order of thequantifiers.
The paraphrasing of the Strong Law in [Ros89, p. 351] resembles Equation (8),though it is also possible to read it as Equation (9):6“In particular, [the Strong Law] shows that, with probability 1, for any
positive value ε,nX
Xi
i=1

n−µ

will be greater than ε only a finite number of times.”
Equation (10) can be recognized in [Hea71, p. 226]:“Indeed for arbitrarily small ε > 0, δ > 0, and large N = N (ε, δ), . . .
a.s.
the [definition] of X n → X . . . can be restated . . . as!
∞\P{ω | |X n (ω) − X (ω)| < ε} > 1 − δn=N...”
Equation (11) resembles the definition in [Fel68, p. 259]:“We say that the sequence X k obeys the strong law of large numbers
if to every pair  > 0, δ > 0, there corresponds an N such that there
is probability 1 − δ or better that for every r > 0 all r + 1 inequalities|Sn − m n |< ,nn = N, N + 1, . . . , N + r

will be satisfied.”

Proofs of the Strong Law
Again the case with finite variance is easier than the general case. Most of theproofs that I have encountered for the Strong Law assuming finite variance arebased on Kolmogorov’s Inequality, which is a generalization of Chebyshev’s Inequality. Even in that case there are still some technical hurdles (I will not go intothese). Consequently, the proofs do not give rise to an explicit bound N in (11)in terms of ε and δ. An exception is [Eis69], where the Hajek–Rényi Inequality isused, which is a generalization of Kolmogorov’s Inequality.
There is, however, a nice overview article, namely [HR80], that specifically
looks at bounds N in terms of ε and δ. It shows, among other things, thatPr ∃n≥N | X̄ n − µ| ≥ ε≤σ2.
Nε 2(15)Compare this result to (3): it is the same upper bound but for a much larger event.
This creates the impression that the Weak Law is not that much weaker than theStrong Law.
7

4 Concluding Remarks
We have looked at one special case to clarify the relationship between the Weakand the Strong Law of Large Numbers. The case was special in that we haveassumed X i to be a sequence of independent and identically distributed randomvariables with finite expectation and that we have considered the convergence ofpartial sample means to the common expectation. Historically, it was precededby more special cases, for instance, with the X i restricted to Bernoulli variables.
Nowadays these laws are treated in much more generality.
My main interest was focused on Equations (8) through (11), which are equivalent—but subtly different—formulations of the Strong Law of Large Numbers. Furthermore, I have looked at “constructive” bounds related to the rate of convergence.
Let me conclude with some sobering quotes (also to be found in [Chu74b,p. 233]). Feller writes in [Fel68, p. 152]:“[The weak law of large numbers] is of very limited interest and should
be replaced by the more precise and more useful strong law of largenumbers.”
In [Wae71, p. 98], van der Waerden writes:“[The strong law of large numbers] scarcely plays a role in mathematical statistics.”
Acknowledgment I would like to thank Fred Steutel for discussing the issues
in this paper and for pointing out reference [HR80].

References[Chu74a] Kai Lai Chung. A Course in Probability Theory. Academic Press, second edition, 1974.
[Chu74b] Kai Lai Chung.
Elementary Probability Theory and StochasticProcesses. Springer, 1974.
[Eis69]Marin Eisen.
Introduction to Mathematical Probability Theory.
Prentice-Hall, 1969.

[Fel68]William Feller. An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, volume I. Wiley, third edition, 1968.

[Fel71]

William Feller. An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications, volume II. Wiley, second edition, 1971.

[Hea71]C. R. Heathcote. Probability: Elements of the Mathematical Theory.
Unwin, 1971.

8[HR80]

A. H. Hoekstra and J. T. Runnenburg. Inequalities compared. Statistica
Neerlandica, 34(2):67–82, 1980.

[LR79]

R. G. Laha and V. K. Rohatgi. Probability Theory. Wiley, 1979.

[Ros89]

Sheldon Ross. A First Course in Probability. Macmillan, third edition,
1989.

[Tuc67]

Howard G. Tucker. A Graduate Course in Probability. Academic Press,
1967.

[Wae71] B. L. Waerden, van der. Mathematische Statistik. Springer, third edition,
1971.

9